Binance $6.3 billion stolen, the breach was not the password, but that screen
Zen without measure · Knowing Chan through entanglement
On October 29, 2026, from 20:10 to 23:05 UTC, two hours and fifty-five minutes.
Assets worth approximately $6 billion were transferred from the Binance hot wallet. This exceeds the $1.5 billion record from the Bybit incident in February 2025, becoming the largest recorded theft in cryptocurrency history.
Let’s clarify how the money is calculated. The on-chain intelligence platform Arkham estimates $6.01 billion, involving nine chains; TRM Labs states $6.36 billion; ChainCatcher notes $5.8 billion in their analysis. Different time points and different chain coverage yield different numbers, while "outflow" does not equal "theft," and it especially does not equal the final loss. You will see these three numbers in different reports; none are correct or incorrect.
By November 1, the FBI officially confirmed that this incident was carried out by the North Korean hacker group TraderTraitor — the same organization behind the Bybit incident in 2025.
1. What happened in two and a half hours
Preparations for the attack were completed the day before the transfer occurred.
From October 28 to 29, a brand new address received three transfers of approximately 0.1 ETH through the mixer Tornado Cash; that was used to pay gas fees.
This is the first anomaly. The exchange’s own allocation would never use a mixer to pay fees. Blockchain analyst Spreek issued a warning based on this, saying literally: this could be routine wallet maintenance, but it looks extremely suspicious.
At 20:10:18 UTC, the first transfer occurred. 965,455 SOL were transferred from Solana, worth about $95.4 million.
At 20:20:06, on the Bitcoin network, 11 transactions in one block transferred 18,270.2 BTC, approximately $1.467 billion. The fact that 11 transactions were noted in the same block indicates that this was not a manual operation, but rather a script running.
At 20:24:23, Ethereum initiated a transaction transferring 64 types of tokens from the Binance address, totaling approximately $2.532 billion, including 167,464 ETH and 1.62 billion USDT.
The subsequent figures began to diverge:
Bitcoin: 18,270.2 BTC, approximately $1.467 billion
Tron: approximately $628 million
Solana: 970,522 SOL, approximately $95.9 million
Combined Arbitrum, Avalanche, Polygon, Optimism, Base: approximately $77.7 million
Approximately $4.9 billion was transferred out in 15 minutes. The entire process was quiet, continuous, and unbroken, looking less like an intrusion and more like an authorized internal allocation.
2. The real vulnerability: EIP-7702
This is the mechanism that needs to be understood most in this article. Understanding it reveals why the statement "private keys were not leaked" is not contradictory to "money was transferred away."
Ethereum introduced EIP-7702 in the Pectra upgrade. Its original design intention was good: to allow regular wallet addresses (EOA) to temporarily "delegate" to a piece of smart contract, thus gaining capabilities like batch transactions and fee payments that were only available to contract wallets.
The normal model looks like this: one address, one piece of code, one set of signatures.
However, the attacker exploited its other side.
On-chain forensic analysis verified the key transaction: in one type-4 transaction, it contained 50 EIP-7702 authorizations. All these signatures can be verified, revealing the corresponding Binance hot wallet address.
The key point is — valid signatures do not equal genuine intent.
The mathematics of signing is complete. But it only proves "this private key signed this piece of data," it does not prove "the signer knows what they are signing." Once the EIP-7702 authorization takes effect, all subsequent calls to this address will execute in the context of the delegate contract specified by the attacker.
Thus, the attacker only needed to do one thing: get Binance's system to sign those 50 authorizations.
After signing, the rest is just routine operations: batch transfers, consolidation, diversion. The entire process was completely legal on-chain — all transaction receipts succeeded, no anomalies could be seen on block explorers.
This is not traditional "stealing a password." This is coaxing the system into handing over permissions.
There is another counterintuitive detail: the attacker revoked the delegation with one transaction 4 hours and 49 minutes later (pointing the delegate to a zero address). This action has several possible explanations — cleaning up traces, preventing other groups from taking over, or purely wrapping up the process. But whatever the case, it does not change the assets that have already been transferred.
3. The cause: a laptop
On-chain evidence can prove "what happened," but not "why it happened."
According to Binance's preliminary disclosures, the incident may have begun with a DevOps engineer's laptop being compromised, which then affected internal service containers and unauthorized withdrawal processes.
The causal chain here is:
Terminal compromised → Obtained identity and session → Entered service container → Initiated withdrawal request → System completed signature → Transaction went on-chain
The on-chain portion is verifiable, but the first four steps can only rely on internal logs. This is why all third-party analysis reports emphasize that "the root cause of the intrusion and the identity of the attacker still need further evidence" — on-chain analysis can tell you how the money moved but cannot tell you what was installed on that engineer's computer.
And the only place to prevent this money was right in that gap.
4. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last
Looking at things from a wider angle, this string of events forms a clear clue.
In May 2019, Binance was hacked for 7,000 BTC, about $41 million. The method involved phishing and malware to obtain users' API keys and Google two-factor authentication.
In October 2022, the BNB Chain cross-chain bridge was attacked. The attacker forged proofs to mint 2 million BNB out of thin air, approximately $566 million.
In February 2025, Bybit was hacked for about $1.5 billion. The attacker breached the UI used by multisig signers — signers believed they were approving routine transfers, but were actually signing the attacker's contract.
In September 2026, Bitget was hacked for about $387 million. The attacker did not obtain the private key but used a zero-day vulnerability in a third-party security product to obtain internal credentials, inserting forged withdrawal instructions to the wallet backend and then erasing traces afterward.
In October 2026, Binance lost $6 billion.
Over seven years, the amount increased from $41 million to $6 billion. Yet the points of attack have changed little:
In 2019, phishing to obtain API keys and 2FA
In 2022, the validation logic of the cross-chain bridge
In 2025, the screen showing the transaction details in front of the signer
In 2026, third-party browser plugins and monitoring tools
Galaxy Research's summary of these events includes, I believe, the most valuable line of all:
No one attacks the mathematics of private keys; they attack the person or system that tells the mathematics what to do.
Every time it is not cryptography that is breached. Each time a process holding permissions is circumvented.
During the same period, Polymarket also halted trading — the reason being that the third-party site performance monitoring tool used was hacked. The loss was only about $2.65 million, but the path was exactly the same: the attacker did not touch Polymarket's system but rather the third-party software installed within Polymarket's own system.
5. In the AI era, overlooked vulnerabilities will be magnified
This is the judgment I want to emphasize in this article.
In traditional offense and defense, both sides have limited human resources. A small, obscure vulnerability may not be valued highly and has non-negligible costs, making it undesirable for attackers to pursue. The so-called "overlooked vulnerabilities" often really go unmanaged, because they are not cost-effective.
AI has changed this cost structure.
Scanning, filtering, testing, combining — tasks that formerly required weeks of work from senior security researchers can now be parallel-launched on thousands of targets within hours. A seemingly worthless small vulnerability can transform in value once put within the framework of "I can scan 100,000 targets simultaneously."
Thus you will notice that the pathways of attacks in recent years have become increasingly focused on edge positions:
A developer's personal laptop
A browser plugin's update channel
A third-party monitoring service's backend
A CI/CD pipeline's credentials
A dependency package that hasn't been updated for a long time
The common point of these items is: they are outside the boundary of the core system, and therefore not within the awareness of the core security team. Yet they all have the capacity to enter the core system, making them backdoors for attackers.
The better the core system is defended, the more valuable the edges become.
6. How individuals can defend: four things, ranked by cost-effectiveness
The following does not involve any tool recommendations, only discusses the order. Start with the lowest cost and highest return.
§First: Treat "authorization" as more dangerous than a private key
Most people's security awareness stops at "don't leak your private key, don't click phishing links." But this incident demonstrates that signing permissions and private keys are assets of equal status.
Specific actions:
Implement a withdrawal whitelist. Once activated, even if your account is completely compromised, assets can only be transferred to your preset addresses.
Regularly clean up authorizations. Provide only as much as necessary for all DeFi and NFT authorizations; revoke any unknown sources.
Carefully examine the content before signing. For any operation requesting "unlimited authorization," pause and think for three seconds.
§Second: Separate large assets from daily operations
This is a principle. The logic of the original text is simple:
As long as your private key is not on “the device that can go online at any time,” attacks on your device cannot steal your money.
So:
Store large assets in a cold wallet, save the mnemonic phrase offline; photographing it and storing it online equals public exposure.
Use a hot wallet for daily transactions, placing only an amount that wouldn't hurt if lost.
Money held in exchange accounts is essentially money held in custody by others — Binance may afford the loss this time, but whether it compensates is its choice, not your right.
§Third: Don’t put all eggs in one basket (especially evident this time)
A highly ironic contrast in this incident is:
USDT and USDC were frozen for about $2.8 billion, while ETH and BTC were never recovered.
The reason is not technical, but structural regarding the issuers. USDT and USDC have centralized issuers that can press the freeze button on any address; whereas BTC and ETH do not have issuers and no institution can press that button.
In this industry, the more "decentralized" the funds are, the less likely they are to be recovered after theft.
Thus diversification is not a philosophy, it is specific:
Different exchanges, different wallets, different asset types
The risk structure of mainstream stablecoins (with freeze mechanisms) is completely different from that of native assets (without freeze mechanisms).
Do not place your entire wealth with any single custodian.
§Fourth: Assume "the next time is tomorrow"
This is a matter of mindset, but it has the greatest impact.
The attack window was only a little over two hours. By the time you think to withdraw, transfer, or move assets, everything would already be over. The premise for being able to act during an incident is that you have been prepared in advance.
7. Black swan: cannot predict, but can price
Lastly, let's discuss a more fundamental issue: how to scientifically guard against the impacts of black swans on capital.
First, accept a fact: you cannot predict this attack, nor do you need to predict it. The definition of a black swan is its unpredictability. Anyone telling you "I saw it coming" is just noise after the fact.
The truly useful approach is to treat the black swan as a pricing issue, rather than a prediction issue.
§First layer: first calculate how much you can lose
Before opening any position, first answer this question: If this money goes to zero tomorrow, will my life change?
If the answer is "yes," then that is too much. This line is not a math problem but a survival issue that you must define yourself.
§Second layer: set a limit for a singular risk source
The core of the previous point is this. Diversification is not "buying more coins," but rather ensuring that no single event can simultaneously take down more than X% of your capital.
This Binance incident is a crucial judgment — one exchange event simultaneously struck both "centralized custody risk" and "liquidity risk," and it happened at the world's largest exchange.
Therefore, setting limits for a single exchange, single protocol, single chain, is the only truly effective protection.
§Third layer: always leave yourself space for “non-forced operations”
This point is often overlooked but may be the most critical.
What truly destroys capital is rarely a one-time drop. It’s when you are forced to act at the very moment you should stay still during a drop — because you need to chase collateral, top up, or repay loans.
So: you need to clearly calculate your leverage, and know the forced liquidation price in the worst case. If you cannot bear that price, then your position is already too large, regardless of how optimistic you feel about it.
§Fourth layer: put part of your capital in a place “not affected by the market”
Not all your money should be in the market. Keep some cash or highly liquid assets at hand; their role is not to make money, but to give you the capability to react in extreme situations.
When black swans arrive, cash is the only thing that gives you the capacity to bargain hunt or exit safely.
8. My perspective
First, the essence of this incident is a “permission architecture issue,” not a “cryptography issue.” Binance’s signature system was fully normal, and on-chain transactions were completely legitimate; what was bypassed was the part of the process regarding “who has the authority to request a signature and what was validated by the system before signing.” As long as that layer of signing permissions remains in the permission chain, any attacker will prioritize attacking it rather than attacking the mathematics.
Second, Binance can afford the losses, but that does not mean this model is secure. The underpinnings for protecting against losses have transitioned from the SAFU fund to become Binance's own balance sheet — the safety mechanism has shifted from “a prepared pool” to “a company's credit.” The reliability of these two aspects is fundamentally different.
Third, AI has completely reversed the cost-effectiveness of “edge vulnerabilities.” Previously, attackers had to weigh cost against benefit, but now they do not. This means that defensive thinking must also be reversed: it is no longer just about "defending the core," but also "securing the edges as if they were core."
Fourth, black swans cannot be predicted, but they can be priced. The only aspects you can control are the exposure structure: limits for a single risk source, the level of leverage, and how much cash you have that is not bound to the market. If you manage these three elements well, leave the rest to the market.
9. Risk warning
This article is a compilation of public information and technical analysis, not investment advice, and does not constitute an offer or recommendation, nor does it guarantee any returns.
The amounts, attributions, and timelines mentioned in the text come from public reports and on-chain analyses. The events are still under investigation, and the final losses and recovered amounts are not yet determined; differences in figures from different organizations exist, and this article maintains those differences without forcibly standardizing them.
Any security advice cannot guarantee absolute fund safety. Cold wallets may be lost, whitelists may be bypassed, and exchanges may encounter collapses. Market risks are extremely high; please make independent judgments and assume all the consequences of your decisions.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
